8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

1/57

The Energy ChallengeChris Llewellyn Smith

Part A The energy challenge

Part B What can/must be done

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

2/57

1) The world uses a lot of energyat a rate of 15.7 TW

average 2.4 kW per person [UK 5.1 kW, Spain 4.4]- very unevenly (use per person in USA = 2.1xUK

= 48x Bangladesh)

2) World energy use is expected to grow 50% by 2030

- growth necessary to lift billions of people out of poverty

3) 80% is generated by burning fossil fuels

climate change& debilitating pollution

- which wont last for ever

Need more efficient use of energy (and probably achange of life style) and major new/expanded sourcesof clean energy - this will require fiscal measures and

new technology

Energy Facts

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

3/57

1.6 billion people (over 25% of theworlds population) lack electricity:

Source: IEA WorldEnergy Outlook 2006

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

4/57

Distancestravelled tocollect fuel forcooking in ruralTanzania; theaverage load isaround 20 kg

Source: IEA World Energy Outlook

2006

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

5/57

Source: IEA World EnergyOutlook 2006

Deaths per year (1000s) caused by indoor airpollution (biomass 85% + coal 15%); total is 1.5

million over half children under five

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

6/57

Annual deaths worldwide fromvarious causes

Source: IEA World Energy Outlook2006*adding coal, total is 1.5 M

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

7/57

One example of the asymmetry ofthe likely effects of climate change

Source: Stern Review

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

8/57

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

9/57

Reaching 3 tonnes ofoil equivalent (toe) per capita for

everyone seems almost impossible* (completely impossible*

while reducing CO2 emissions)need to lower target

*at least without a large reduction in population: there could be aMalthusian solution

But 3 toe looks quite luxurious as a target for allit is 77% of

current UK per capita usage*, which (I think) could easily be

tolerablefor Japan, Europe

* 38% for USA

Equity (same energy for all) without any energy increasewould

require going to 46% of current UK usage per capita at

current population level(23% for USA)- 35% with 8.1 billion

population (18% for USA)!

Equity without lots more energy (whence?) would requirechanges of life style in the developed world

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

10/57

Sources of EnergyWorlds primary energy supply (rounded):

80 % - burning fossil fuels (43% oil, 32% coal,25% natural gas)

10% - burning combustible renewables andwaste

5% - nuclear5% - hydro

0.5% - geothermal, solar, wind, . . .

NB Primary energy defined here for hydro, solar and windas equivalent primary thermal energy

electrical energy output for hydro etc is also often used,e.g. hydro ~ 2.2%

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

11/57

Fossil Fuelsare

generating debilitating pollution(300,000 coal pollution deaths pa in China; DidcotPower Station [large coal & gas fired plant near Oxford]has probably killed more people than Chernobyl)

driving potentially catastrophic climatechange

and will run out sooner or later (later if we can exploitmethyl hydrates)

Saudi saying My father rode a camel. I drive a car.

My son flies a plane. His son will ride a camel

Is this true? Perhaps

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

12/57

W

ith

With current growth, the 95 year (2100) line will be reached in:

2068 for oil (growth 1.2% pa but growth will decline beyond Hubbert peak)

2049 for gas (growth 3.1% pa)

2041 for coal (growth 4.5% pa); note some people believe coal resource muchsmaller

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

13/57

Oil Supply

Note: discoveries back-dated

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

14/57

Source: ASPO

Oil Supply

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

15/57

Fossil Fuel Use

- a brief episode in the worlds history

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

16/57

UNCONVENTIONAL OIL

Unconventional oil resources*are thought to amount to atleast 1,000 billion barrels (compared to 2,300 billion barrels

of conventional oil remaining according to the USGS)

*oil sands in Canada, extra heavy oil in Venezuela, shale oilin the USA,

-generates 2% of global oil supply today 8% by 2030?

Expected increase mainly in Canada. Cost of producingsynthetic crude (which is very sensitive to price of gas or

other fuel used steam injected to make bitumen flow) iscurrently $33/barrel (vs. a few $s/barrel in Saudi Arabia)

Production of 1 barrel of crude requires 0.4 barrels of oilequivalent to produce steam

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

17/57

Methyl Hydrates Bane or Boon?

MHs are gases (bacterially generated methane) trapped in a

matrix of water at low temperature and/or high pressure inpermafrost and marine sediments (below 500m)

USGS (which thinks that 370 trillion m3 of natural gas are left)estimates that there are (2,800 8.5M) trillion m3 of MHs

Bane? Methane in MHs could be released by global warming;some evidence that this happened 55.5M years ago (latePaleocene) when the temperature rose by 5-8C

Boon? Potentially a hugesource of energy:

- Permafrost: Japanese test underway in Canada to releaseby drilling into porous sandstone containing MHs (release bypressure decrease)

- Sea: danger of boiling sinking ships and rigs

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

18/57

Use of Energy

Electricity productionuses ~ 1/3 of primary

energy (more in developed world; less in developingworld)

- this fraction could (and is likely in the future to) behigher

End Use (rounded)

25% industry

25% transport

50% built environment 31% domestic in UK(private, industrial, commercial)

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

19/57

Note that mixture of fuels used electricityis very different indifferent countries

e.g. coal ~ 35% in UK, ~76% in China (where hydro ~ 18%)

Source: IEA WEO. 2008 IEA Key Statistics give 2.3% of Other (2006 data)

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

20/57

Conclusions on Energy Challenge

Large increase in energy use expected, and needed to lift billions outof poverty

Seems (IEA World Energy Outlook) that it will require an increaseduse of fossil fuels which is driving potentially catastrophic climate change*

will run out sooner or later

There is therefore an urgent need to reduce energy use (or atleast curb growth), and seek cleaner ways of producing energyon a large scale

IEA: Achieving a truly sustainable energy system will call for radicalbreakthroughs that alter how we produce and use energy

*Ambitious goal for 2050 - limit CO2 to twice pre-industrial level. Todo this while meeting expected growth in power consumptionwouldneed 50% more CO2-free powerthan todays totalpower

US DoE The technology to generate this amount of emission-freepower does not exist

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

21/57

Meeting the Energy Challenge

what can/must be done? I

Introduce fiscal measures and regulation to changebehaviour (reduce consumption) and stimulate R&D(new/improved technology)

Increased investment in energy research*will be essential

*public funding down 50% globally since 1980 in real terms;worlds publicly funded energy R&D budget ~ 0.25% of energymarket (which is$4 trillion a year)

Note when considering balance of R&D funding, should bringmarket incentives/subsidies (designed to encouragedeployment of renewables) into the picture

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

22/57

Coal

44.5%

Oil and gas

30%

Fusion

1.5%

Fission

6%

Renewables

18%

Energy subsidies (28 bn pa) + R&D (2 bn pa)in the EU in 2001 ~ 30 Billion Euro (per year)

Source : EEA, Energy subsidies inthe European Union: A briefoverview, 2004.Fusion and fission are displayedseparately using the IEAgovernment-R&D data base andEURATOM 6th framework

programme data

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

23/57

Meeting the Energy Challenge IIRecognise that the solution will be a cocktail (there is nosilver bullet), including

Actions to improve efficiency (+ avoid use)

Use of renewables where appropriate(although individually nothugely significant globally, except in principlesolar)

BUT only four sources capable in principle of meeting a

really large fraction of the worlds energy needs:

Burning fossil fuels*(currently 80%)mustdevelop & deployCO2 capture and storage if feasible

* remaining fossil fuels will be used

Solar- seek breakthroughs in production and storage Nuclear fission- cannot avoid if we are serious about reducing

fossil fuel burning (at least until fusion available)

Fusion - with so few options, we must develop fusion as fast aspossible, even if success is not 100% certain

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

24/57

Energy EfficiencyProduction e.g. world average power plant efficiency ~ 30%

45% (state of the art) would save 4% of anthropic carbon dioxideDistribution typically 10% of electricity lost* ( 50% due tonon-technical losses in some countries: need better metering)*mostly local; not in high voltage grid

Use:- more energy efficient buildings, CHP (40% 85-90%use of energy) where appropriate

- smart/interactive grid

- more efficient transport

- more efficient industry

Huge scopebut demand is rising fasterNote: Energy intensity (= energy/gpd) fell 1.6% pa 1990-2004

Efficiency is a key component of the solution, but cannot

meet the energy challenge on its own

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

25/57

The Built Environment

Consumes ~ 50% of energy(transport 25% and industry 25%)

nearly 50% of UK CO2 emissionsdue to constructing, maintaining,occupying buildings

Improvements in design couldhave a big impact

e.g. could cut energy used to heathomes by up to factor of three (but

turn over of housing stock ~ 100years)

Tools: better information,regulation, financial instruments

Source: Foster and Partners. Swiss ReTower uses 50% less energy than aconventional office building (naturalventilation & lighting)

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

26/57

APS Study of Building EfficiencyIn USA:buildings use 40% of primary energy -

Heating and cooling: 500 GW primary energy (65% residential; 35%commercial)

Lighting: 250 GW primary energy(43% residential; 57% commercial)22% of all US electricity (29% world-wide)

[Spain: total electricity 31 GW ~ 90 GW primary energy, thermal equivalent]

Measures on lighting:Better use of natural light; reduce over-lighting; more efficient bulbs:

Traditional incandescent bulbs ~ 5% efficient

Compact fluorescent lights ~ 20% efficient

Detailed study: in USA, upgrading residential incandescent bulbsand ballasts and lamps in commercial buildings could save = 3% of allelectricity use ( If this finding translates pro rata to UK, it would saveone 1 GW power station!)

In longer term:LEDs (up to 50% efficient); R&D needed white light

+ reduce cost

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

27/57

T

TRANSPORT~ 25% of primary energy

Growing rapidlye.g. IEA thinks 700 million light vehicles today 1,400 million in 2030 (China: 9m 100m; India: 6.5 m 56m)

Is this possible?Can certainlynotreach US levels: for the worlds per capita petrolconsumption to equal that in the USA, total petrol consumption wouldhave to increase by almost a factor of ten

Consider light vehicles

Major contributor to use of oil (passenger cars and lighttrucks use 63% of energy used in all transport in USA) + CO2

Report APS Study of Potential improvements.Consider: what after the end of oil? (Biofuels, coal & gas oil, electric, hydrogen)

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

28/57

Trends:Improvements: front wheeldrive, engine, transmission,computer control..

1975 1985 mandatory CorporateAverage Fuel Economy standardsimproved annually, but thereaftermanufactures continued to improveefficiency butbuilt heavier, morepowerful cars:

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

29/57

MIT Study:

In longer term

maybe Plug-inHybrids, hydrogen(or other) fuel cells

Prospects for ImprovementsAPS Considers 50 mpg (US) by 2030 reasonable*(decreased weight:-10% 6-7% fuel economy), improved efficiency, hybrids + possibly

Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition, variable compressionratios, 2/4 stroke switching.

*4.7 litres/100km

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

30/57

Petrol engines much less efficient than electricmotors (90%), but comparison needs overall well to

wheels analysis

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

31/57

Electric vs. Petrol

Pro electric:efficiency

Oil well 90% tank 0.9 x 12.6% = 11% wheelsSource 30% electricity 0.3 x 90% = 27% battery 0.27 x 90% = 24% wheels

Source ? fuel cell ? x 60% electricity ?x 0.6x 90% = ? x 55% wheels

Pro petrol:weight/volume

Petrol 34.6 MJ/l 47.5 MJ/kg

Li ion battery (today) 0.7 MJ/l 0.5 MJ/kg

H at 1 atmosphere 0.009 MJ/l 143 MJ/kg

H at 10,000 psi 4.7 MJ/l 143 MJ/kg

Liquid hydrogen 10.1MJ/l 143 MJ/kg

APS Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles unlikely to be more than a niche

product without breakthroughschallenges are durability and cost of

fuel cells, including catalysts, cost-effective on-board storage, hydrogenproduction and deployment and refuelling infrastructure

H d

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

32/57

Hydrogen

Excites public and politicians

- no CO2 at point of useOnly helpful if no CO2 at point of production

e.g. - capture and store carbon at point of production

- produce from renewables (reduced problem ofintermittency)

- produce from fission or fusion (electrolysis, or catalyticcracking of water at high temperature)

Usually considered for powering cars:

Excellent energy/mass ratio but energy/volume terrible

Need to compress or liquefy (uses ~ 30% of energy, and adds toweight), or absorb in light metals (big chemical challenge beingaddressed by Oxford led consortium)

R bl

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

33/57

Renewables

Could they replace a significant fraction of the 13 TW (andgrowing) currently provided by burning fossil fuels?

Solarcould in principlepower the world given breakthroughs in energy storageand costs (which should be sought) see later

Hydro - already significant: could add up to 1TW thermal equivalent

Wind -up to 3 TW thermal equivalent conceivable

Burning biomass - already significant: additional 1 TW conceivable

Geothermal, tidal and wave energy - 200 GW conceivable

All should be fully exploited where sensible, but excluding

solar, cannot imaging more than 6 TW huge gap as fossilfuels decline

[Conclusions are very location dependent: geothermal is a major player inIceland, Kenya,;the UK has 40% of Europes wind potential and is wellplaced for tidal and waves;the US south west is much better than the UK for

solar;there is big hydro potential in the Congo;]

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

34/57

Preliminary Conclusions

Must improve efficiency but at best will only stop growth(unless we are prepared to tolerate a very inequitable world). Needsinitial investment, but can save a lot of money

Must exploit renewables to the maximum extent reasonablypossible (not easy as it will put up costs)

Likely most of remaining fossil fuels will be burned. If so,carbon capture and storage is the only way to limit climatechange(but will put up costs)

In the long-run, will need (a combination of):

- Large scale solar- Much more nuclear fission

- Fusion

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

35/57

Carbon Capture and Storage

In principle could capture CO2 from power stations (35%

of total) and from some industrial plants (not from cars,domestic)

Capture and storage - would add ~$2c/kWh to cost for gas;more for coal - in both casesmuch more initially

Storage - could (when location appropriate) be in depletedgas fields, depleted oil fields, deep saline aquifers

Issues are safety and cost (capture typically reduces efficiencyby 10 percentage points, e.g. 46% 37%, 41% 32%,..)

With current technology: capture, transmission and storagewould ~ double generation cost for coal

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

36/57

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

37/57

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

38/57

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

39/57

Conclusions on Carbon Capture and

StorageMandatory if feasibleand the world is serious about climatechange- big potentialifsaline aquifers OK (said to be plenty in Chinaand India)

Large scale demonstration very important

- First end-to-end CCS power station just opened in N Germany(30MW oxy-fuel addon steam to turbines in existing 1 GW powerstation)

- EU Zero Emissions Power strategy proposes 12 demonstration plants(want many, in different conditions) by 2015: needed to develop/choose

technologies, and drive down cost, if there is going to be significantdeployment by 2030

-Meanwhile should make all plants capture ready (post-combustion oroxy-fuel)

It will require a floor for the price of carbon

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

40/57

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

41/57

Solar (non-bio)Photovoltaics (hydrogen storage?)

Concentration (parabolic troughs,heliostats, towers)

High T:

turbines (storage: molten salts,

dissociation/synthesis of ammonia,phase transitions in novel materials)

thermal cracking of water to

hydrogen

Challenges: new materials, fatigue

Thermal (low T): hot water (even in UK not stupid), cooling

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

42/57

Projected cost of photovoltaic solar power?

$1/WpAC 2.6 -cents/kWhr in California(4.7 in Germany)

- requires cost ~ cost of glass!

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

43/57

Solar Parabolic TroughMirrors + receivers + conventional (super) heated steamturbine. Generally solar/fossil hybrids (can be ISCC).

Considerable experience (a few with heat storage).Individual systems < 80 MW.

Heliostats

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

44/57

HeliostatsHeats molten salt to 565C (buffer) steam, or airor water. May(initially at least) be hybrid

(including ISCC). Pilots built, butnone yet on commercial scale: 50

200 MW.

Dish/StirlingengineUp to 750C, 20 MPa. Highefficiency (30% achieved.Small (< 25 kWeach). Modular.May be hybrid. Needs massproduction to drive down cost(can Brayton turbine)

Nuclear Power

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

45/57

Nuclear Power

Recent performance impressive construction ~ (?) on

time and (?) budget, excellent safety record, cost looks OK

New generation of reactors (AP1000, EPR) fewercomponents, passive safety, less waste, lower down timeand lower costs

Constraints on expansion

-snails pace of planning permission(in UK +)

- concerns about safety

- concerns about waste

- proliferation risk

- availability of cheap uranium

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

46/57

Problems and limitations

Safety biggest problem is perception (arguable thatDidcot power station has killed more people thanChernobyl)

Waste problem is volume for long term disposal

US figures:

Existing fleet will 100,000 tonnes (c/f legislatedcapacity of Yucca mountain = 70,000 tonnes)

If fleet expanded by 1.8% p.a. 1,400,000 tonnes atend of century

Proliferation need to limited availability of enrichmenttechnology, and burn or contaminate fissile products

U i R

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

47/57

Uranium Resources

. US DoE Data/Projections:

Assuming 1.8%p.a. growth ofworlds nuclearuse

Unless there ismuch more thanthought, or wecan useunconventional

uranium, notlong to startFBRs

Will need to use thorium and/or fast breeders in ~ 50 years

Need to develop now

C

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

48/57

Different Fuel Cycles Goals

- reduce waste needing long-term disposal (destroy: [99.5+%?] oftransuranics, and heat producing fission products [caesium,strontium])

- burn or contaminate weapons-usable material

- get more energy/(kg of uranium)

Options(some gains possible from improved burn-up in oncethrough reactors; as in all thermal power plants, higher temperature more energy/kg of fuel)

Recycle in conventional reactors can get ~2 times energy/kg +reduce waste volume by factor 2 or 3 (note: increase proliferation

risk + short-term risk from waste streams) Fast breeders

[Mixed economy: conventional reactors + burn waste by havingsome FBRs or accelerator based waste burners]

Plutonium Fast Breeders

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

49/57

Plutonium Fast Breeders

In natural uranium, only 235U (0.7%) is fissile, but canmake fissile Plutonium from the other 99.3%

238U + n 239Np 239Pufertile fissile

order 60 times more energy/kg of U

more expensive (and not quite so safe + large plutoniuminventory), but far less waste storage

Potential problemslow ramp up* (1 reactor 2 takes ~ 10 years)

* Based on figures from Paul Howarth:1 GWe FBR needs stockpile of ~ 30 tonnes Pu to operate ~ 12 years[30 tonnes of Pu is output of a 1 GWe LWR for ~ 140 years]

After 12 years 30t Pu to refuel + 30t Pu to start another

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

50/57

ThoriumThorium is more abundant than Uranium* and 100% can be

burned (generating less waste than Uranium), using232Th + n 233Th 232Pa U233fertile fissile

Thermal neutrons OK, but then to avoid poisoning need continuous

reprocessing molten salts

* accessible 232Th resource seems (??) to be over 4 Mt, vs. 0.1 Mt for235U (if total accessible U resource is 16 Mt)

Need Pu or highly enriched U core ( large number ofneutrons)orneutrons from accelerator driven spallation source*

in order to get started

Relatively rapid ramp up but long doubling time (?)

* avoids having a near critical system, but economics suggest

AD systems best potential is for actinide burning

FUSION

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

51/57

FUSION

D + T He + N + 17.6 MeV

Tritium from N + Li He + TSo the raw fuels are lithium ( T), which is very abundant, and water ( D)

The lithium in one laptop battery + half a bath of water wouldproduce 200,000 kW-hours of electricity

= EU per-capitaelectricity production for 30 yearswithout any CO2

This ( + fact that costs do not look unreasonable: might be ableto compete with fast breeders?) is sufficient reason to develop

fusion as a matter of urgency

Now focus on magnetic confinement (inertial fusion should alsobe pursued, but is a generation behind, and faces additionalchallenges)

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

52/57

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

53/57

FUSION(magnetic confinement- cont)Attractions: unlimited fuel, no CO2 or air pollution, intrinsic safety,no radioactive ash or long-lived nuclear waste, cost will be

reasonable ifwe can get it to work reliably

Disadvantages: not yet available, walls gets activated (but halflives ~ 10 years; could recycle after 100 years)

Next Steps:

Construct a power station sized device ( at least 10 timesmore energy than input) this has just been agreed: it is calledITER and is being built by EU, Japan, Russia, USA, China, SKorea, India in Provence

Build a Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF) and

develop fusion technologies

IF these steps are taken in parallel, then - given adequatefunding, and no major adverse surprises - a prototype fusionpower station could be putting power into the grid within 30years

Could what is available add up to a solution?

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

54/57

Could what is available add up to a solution?

Known technologies could in principlemeet needs with

constrained CO2 until the middle of the century, but only with

- technology development, e.g. for carbon capture and storage:essential

-measures to increase efficiency (cost is a big driver, but need

strong regulation also)-all known low carbon sources pushed to the limit

After fossil fuels depleted, must continue to use everythingavailable. But the only major potential contributors are

- Solar which must be developed

- Nuclear fission fast breeders

- Fusion: which mustbe developed

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

55/57

Cost Effectiveness of Modest CO Saving in

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

56/57

Cost Effectiveness of Modest CO2 Saving in

IEAs 2006 Alternative Scenario(only +30% CO2 in 2030: +50% in Reference Scenario)

Supply side investment saved: $3.0 trillion* to 2030*out of over $29 trillion in reference scenario, which wont necessarily be

available

Additional demand side investment*: $2.4 trillion to 2030*byconsumers, who cumulatively save $8.1 trillionin power billsso

investment very cost effective(even with an enormous discount rate as payback times ~ 3 years in OECD/1.5 years developing countries)

Gains biggest in developing world

low hanging fruit; demand side work cheaper

but implementation requires many individual investment decisions,by people

- such as landlords, developers who wont be paying the power bills

- in the developing world, without access to capital

- in developed world, without a great interest in individually small savings

Final Conclusions

8/4/2019 coloquio_0045

57/57

Final Conclusions Huge increase in energy use expected; large increase neededto lift world out of poverty

Challenge of meeting demand in an environmentallyresponsible manner is enormous. No silver bullet - need aportfolio approach

Need all sensible measures: more wind, hydro, biofuels,marine, and particularly:CCS (essential to reduce climatechange) and increased efficiency, and in longer term: moresolar and nuclear, and fusion [we hope]

Huge R&D agenda

Need fiscal incentives, regulation, carbon price, more R&D,political will (globally)

The time for action is now